Stuart River Provincial Park
2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary Prepared for: Society of Ecosystem Restoration in North Central BC 1560 Highway 16 E, Vanderhoof, BC ,V0J 3A0
Submitted by: Ecofor Consulting Ltd. 140 Stuart Dr W. Fort St James, BC V0J 1P0 Canada Phone: 250-996-2151
Ecofor Contact: Mark Pokorski Date: 3 March 2017
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
Project Number: 2016-2083-001
File Number:
Filename: 2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx
Document Revision: 0
REVISION HISTORY
Reviewed Approved Rev.# Date of Issue Description By By 0 2017-03-03 CG MP Initial release
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page ii Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ...... 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES ...... 1 2 METHODS ...... 1 2.1 PLOT SELECTION ...... 1 2.2 PLOT ASSESSMENT ...... 2 3 RESULTS & DISCUSSION ...... 2 3.1 TREE CANOPY ...... 3 3.2 REGENERATION AND SAPLINGS ...... 4 3.3 SHRUBS ...... 5 3.4 UNDERSTORY...... 5 3.5 COARSE WOODY DEBRIS ...... 6 3.6 WILDLIFE ...... 6 3.7 UNIDENTIFIED PLANTS ...... 8 4 CONTINUING/FUTURE WORK ...... 8 4.1 DATA ENTRY TRIAL ...... 8 5 CLOSURE ...... 9 6 LITERATURE CITED...... 10
APPENDICES Mapping ...... 11 Data Tables ...... 13 Photodocumentation ...... 19
LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Plot location and assessment dates for Stuart River PP in 2016 ...... 3 Table 2: Summary of tree species and basal area in BAF 4 prism plots for Stuart River PP vegetation monitoring plots in 2016...... 3 Table 3: Species of large shrub and tree sapling and regeneration layers in Stuart River PP vegetation monitoring plots in 2016...... 4
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page iii Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
Table 4: Average length along shrub transects and number of plots for each shrub species detected within Stuart River PP in 2016...... 5 Table 5: Coarse woody degree ocular estimates for each plot in Stuart River PP in 2016...... 6 Table 6: Total pellet groups for ungulate species detected at Stuart River PP in 2016...... 7
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Den site located near Plot 1 in Stuart River PP...... 7
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page iv Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
1 INTRODUCTION The Society for Ecological Restoration in Northern BC (SERNbc) has an ongoing restoration program at Stuart River Provincial Park near Fort St James, BC. The site was treated with prescribed burns in 2002, 2009, and 2014 with the intent of increasing and maintaining the amount of grassland area present. Vegetation monitoring was previously conducted 2006 (Sharp 2006), 2009 (Albertson 2009), and 2012 (FLNRO; unpublished data).
Ecofor Consulting Ltd (Ecofor) was retained by SERNbc to conduct vegetation monitoring as per the Prescribed Burn Monitoring Protocol for Omineca Region, British Columbia (Rooke et al 2015). This document summarizes the work conducted at the Stuart River Provincial Park (PP) by Ecofor in 2016.
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The vegetation monitoring plots in Stuart River PP are located approximately 34 km south of the town of Fort St James, BC. The approximate centre point of the sampling area is at UTM coordinates (NAD 83) Zone 10U, 442926 E, 6007546 N. The site can be accessed by road by following the Necoslie Forest Service Road (FSR) southeast from Vanderhoof for 33 km, then following the Charlie FSR for approximately 5 km (UTV/ATV maybe required during wet conditions). Access to the plots by foot is possible from this road.
The Project area is comprised mainly of a matrix of grassland, shrubs and regenerating forest varying in composition on a south facing hillside. Mature mixed forest is present in most locations at the top and bottom of the slope.
1.2 OBJECTIVES The monitoring objectives were to collect data to characterize changes in vegetation composition and stand structure resulting from the prescribed burn.
2 METHODS The Prescribed Burn Monitoring Protocol for Omineca Region, British Columbia (Rooke et al 2015) was used as the guideline for the survey methods.
2.1 PLOT SELECTION Ten plot locations were established during the original monitoring visit in 2006 (Sharp 2006). Plots were marked with a 1 m length of steel rebar. All plots were located in areas that were burned (i.e. no control plots).
Relocation of the original plot center rebar markers was not possible in most cases. There were abundant fallen logs and dense shrubs in many locations, which made finding the rust-coloured rebar difficult or prevented it altogether. The original rebar was located at plots 7, 8, 9, and 10. At the other plots, the GPS point from 2009 was used to locate the plot centre.
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 1 Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
2.2 PLOT ASSESSMENT In 2006, 2009, and 2012 the plots were assessed using the Stuart River Prescribed Fire Monitoring Protocol (Simonar and Migabo 2006). In 2009, no data was collected for Plot 7, since the survey crew found that GPS coordinates and site characteristics did not match the 2006 data. Plot 7 appears to have been assessed at the erroneous GPS location in 2012, but was assigned the Plot ID 12-7208 in the 2012 data (12 indicates the year 2012, 72 indicates the site, and 08 should indicate the plot). Other plots also appear to have alternate plot numbers in 2012, so the 2016 plot naming follows 2006 and 2009.
Assessments at each plot in 2016 followed the Prescribed Burn Monitoring Protocol for Omineca Region, British Columbia (Rooke et al 2015) for site characteristics, stand structure, vegetation intercept transects, shrub transects, and ungulate use plots. Soil profiling was not conducted due to time constraints. The simplified coarse woody debris (CWD) scoring method was utilized, as described in the protocol.
Data was collected using the ESRI Survey 123 app on iPad minis to approximate the data required in the data forms recommended by the Protocol: stand structure (FS505G), vegetation (FS505G), shrub transects (FS882(4)), and the supplemental combined data form (canopy coverage, CWD, ungulate use) used by Ecofor in 2015 at Grizzly Valley and Euchiniko Sidehills (Ecofor Consulting 2016).
None of the plots were located in areas that could be truly consider treed, so only one transect was assessed, as per the protocol. Transects were established using a random bearing from a random number table. A 50 cm pigtail stake was place at the centre of each plot, along with a 10 cm nail driven flush with the ground. A second 10 cm nail, driven flush to the ground was placed at the 25 m mark on each transect (27 m from plot centre, since the transect begins 2 m from plot centre).
Where available, the tree nearest the plot centre was spray painted orange at shoulder height and at ground level, and an aluminum tag with Project and Plot information was affixed with an aluminum nail. In plots without a suitable tree present; a pigtail and nail were placed. If the rebar centre stake from previous assessments was located (Table 1), it was spray painted orange to facilitate future plot location.
Photos in the four cardinal directions were taken at the centre of each plot with the iPad’s camera. A photo of the ground vegetation at the centre stake was also taken.
All herbaceous vascular species and low woody shrubs listed in the Field Manual for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems (Ministry of Forests and Range and Ministry of Environment 2010) in were included in the vegetation transects. Shrub and tree species less than 2 m tall were included in the shrub transects. Unidentified plants were collected for identification at the office.
Ungulate use plots were 4.0 m radius circles centred at 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 m on each transect. Ungulate use plot centres were marked with flagging ribbon.
3 RESULTS & DISCUSSION Sampling took place from August 30th to September 9th (Table 1). A map of the plot locations is provided in Appendix 1. Data tables are provided in Appendix 2, and as a deliverable MS Excel
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 2 Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
spreadsheet. Appendix 3 presents photos from each plot. Data was collected in 2016 using a different protocol than in 2006, 2009, and 2012, so the data are not directly comparable in most cases. In addition, the exact location of the original plot was located only in Plots 7, 8, 9 and 10, which could also confound direct comparisons (See Section 4 for discussion on additional comparison statistics).
Table 1: Plot location and assessment dates for Stuart River PP in 2016
Plot UTM Easting Northing Rebar Located? Date Assessed Transect Zone Azimuth 16-SR01 10 447019 6007803 No 2016-09-08 3 16-SR02 10 446403 6007892 No 2016-08-30 19 16-SR03 10 445473 6007640 No 2016-09-01 83 16-SR04 10 444439 6007583 No 2016-09-01 318 16-SR05 10 443764 6007337 No 2016-09-02 144 16-SR06 10 442932 6007535 No 2016-09-02 159 16-SR07 10 442203 6007822 Yes 2016-09-08 130 16-SR08 10 440791 6008018 Yes 2016-09-06 117 16-SR09 10 439506 6007993 Yes 2016-09-06 111 16-SR10 10 437713 6008680 Yes 2016-09-09 323
3.1 TREE CANOPY Tree canopy was sparse in all plots. A BAF 4 prism was used to enumerate the trees in each plot (12.5 cm minimum DBH). Plots 4, 7, and 8 had no trees meeting the criteria (Table 2; Appendix 2). Canopy coverage percentages were scored in the 0-5% range in all but 2 plots. Plot 3 and 10 scored in the 5- 25% canopy coverage range.
There was no basal area (BA) data available from the 2012 assessments, but the data show a large decrease from 2009. In 2009 the average basal area for all the plots was 25.3 m2/ha compared to 9.2 m2/ha in 2016. The biggest change is in live stems, which decreased from an overall average of 22.5 m2/ha in 2009 to 5.2 m2/ha in 2016. Dead stem basal are increased slightly from 3 m2/ha to 4 m2/ha on average. It is likely that mortality over time following the 2009 fire, and additional tree mortality from the 2014 fire account for these changes.
Table 2: Summary of tree species and basal area in BAF 4 prism plots for Stuart River PP vegetation monitoring plots in 2016.
Total BA (Live and BA live stems BA dead stems Plot Species dead) (m2/ha) (m2/ha) (m2/ha) 16-SR01 At 4 - 4 16-SR02 At 8 - 8 16-SR03 Sxw/W* 28 24 4 16-SR04 n/a 0 - - 16-SR05 At 8 8 - 16-SR06 At 12 4 8 16-SR07 n/a 0 - -
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 3 Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
16-SR08 n/a 0 - - 16-SR09 Sxw 8 8 - 16-SR10 At 24 8 16 Avg. 9.2 5.2 4
* 1 live willow in plot
Trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) was the most common tree species, while hybrid white spruce (Picea engelmannia x glauca) was also common. One plot had a willow large enough to count as a tree. In general, there were few standing trees present in each plot.
3.2 REGENERATION AND SAPLINGS The most common forest regeneration (regen) (tree and large shrub species, <2m tall) and sapling species (>2m, < 10 m) was trembling aspen (Table 3). Several other species were found in small numbers. The only plot that did not have an abundance of aspen regen and saplings was Plot 3, which had the most abundant conifer coverage.
Table 3: Species of large shrub and tree sapling and regeneration layers in Stuart River PP vegetation monitoring plots in 2016.
Hybrid Trembling Alder Pin Choke Willow Plot White Saskatoon Total aspen sp. Cherry Cherry sp. Spruce Regen 38 - - - 15 - - 53 16-SR01 Sapling 39 - 2 - - - - 41 Regen 20 - - 17 - - - 37 16-SR02 Sapling 73 - - 8 - - - 81 Regen 1 2 - - - - - 3 16-SR03 Sapling 2 ------2 Regen 42 ------42 16-SR04 Sapling 63 ------63 Regen 22 - - - - 2 - 24 16-SR05 Sapling 9 - - - - 3 - 12 Regen 29 - - - 2 2 - 33 16-SR06 Sapling 23 - - - 1 1 - 25 Regen 101 ------101 16-SR07 Sapling 20 ------20 Regen 84 - - - - 2 - 86 16-SR08 Sapling 14 ------14 Regen 16 8 - - - - 1 25 16-SR09 Sapling 17 - - - - - 1 18 Regen 31 - - - - - 1 32 16-SR10 Sapling 11 - - - - - 2 13
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 4 Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
3.3 SHRUBS Sixteen species were counted as shrubs (woody species <2 m tall) along the shrub transects, though three of these species were actually young tree species (aspen, paper birch and hybrid white spruce) (Table 4, Appendix 2). Three species were found in all 10 plots: Saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia), prickly rose (Rosa acicularis), and tall Oregon-grape (Mahonia aquifolium). Common Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) was found at nine of the plots.
Beaked hazel (Corylus cornuta) was found only at Plot 2, and was not detected during previous monitoring visits. It was fairly abundant in the area of the plot, but was only intercepted the plot transect in one location.
Table 4: Average length along shrub transects and number of plots for each shrub species detected within Stuart River PP in 2016.
# of Avg total length along Shrub Species plots transect Beaked Hazelnut 1 0.3 Birch-leaved Spirea 7 0.74 Choke Cherry 6 1.23 Common Snowberry 9 1.92 Highbush-cranberry 2 0.35 Hybrid White Spruce 1 0.8 Paper Birch 1 0.1 Pin Cherry 1 1.55 Prairie Saskatoon 10 3.15 Prickly Rose 10 2.80 Pyramid Spirea 2 2.38 Red Raspberry 4 0.96 Red-osier Dogwood 1 0.22 Tall Oregon-grape 10 1.36 Thimbleberry 2 0.46 Trembling Aspen 9 1.99
3.4 UNDERSTORY A total of 34 species of understory plants were detected along the understory point intersect transects (Appendix 2). Four species occurred in each of the 10 plots: American vetch (Vicia americana), Canada violet (Viola canadensis), Hooker’s fairybells (Prosartes hookeri), and showy aster (Eurybia conspicua). Five more species were found in 7 or more plots: blue wild-rye (Elymus glaucus), creamy peavine (Lathyrus ochroleucus), fireweed (Chamerion angustifolium), northern bedstraw (Galium boreale) and western meadow-rue (Thalictrum occidentale). Showy aster, American vetch, Canada violet and western meadow-rue were also considered common in 2009, and appear to be common in the 2012 data as well. As in previous years, grass species were present in each plot, but not dominant in any plots.
Although reported as the dominant understory species in 2006, 2009 and 2012, clasping twisted-stalk (Streptopus amplexifolius) was not detected in 2016. Hooker’s fairybells is a similar-looking member of
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 5 Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
the lily family which was widespread throughout the Project area in 2016. The assessment crew was aware of the previous species list, and are confident in the identification of this species (the presence of 2 berries at the end of the stalk is diagnostic, and this feature was present on many specimens). Similarly, creamy peavine was identified in 2016, while previous monitoring identified purple peavine (Lathyrus nevadensis). These two species are both somewhat variable and quite similar to each other. Due to the late time in the season of the assessments it is possible that they could not be differentiated (the flowers are the diagnostic feature, which were no longer present).
One plant considered a noxious weed in BC, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), was detected in Plot 1. It easily colonizes disturbed areas, and may expand in abundance in disturbed areas of Stuart River PP. Only one occurrence was detected on the understory transect.
3.5 COARSE WOODY DEBRIS Coarse woody debris (CWD) was assessed in a manner differing from previous years. It was not directly counted, but estimated from plot centre based criteria laid out in the protocol (Rooke et al 2015). CWD with diameter greater than 7.5 cm was included in the CWD estimate.
Plots had varying degrees of CWD present, except for Plot 7, which lacked CWD altogether (Table 5; Appendix 2). High volumes of CWD were defined in the protocol as several full length pieces of CWD, or piles of debris making walking a transect difficult.
Most CWD was classed as ‘decomposing’, indicating that the CWD likely resulted from tree mortality caused by one of the prescribed burns. A ‘decayed’ classification indicated that the CWD had been dead and decaying since before the burns occurred.
CWD complexity was variable at each site. Some sites had CWD spread apart in singles, while others had CWD grouped in piles or overlapping.
Table 5: Coarse woody degree ocular estimates for each plot in Stuart River PP in 2016.
CWD CWD CWD Plot CWD Decay Class Volume Length complexity 16-SR01 High Mixed Decomposing Complex 16-SR02 Moderate Mixed Decomposing Complex 16-SR03 Moderate Mixed Decomposing Single 16-SR04 High Mixed Decomposing Complex 16-SR05 Moderate Mixed Decomposing Single 16-SR06 Moderate Mixed Decayed Complex 16-SR07 None NA NA NA 16-SR08 Low Short Decomposing Single 16-SR09 Moderate Mixed Decomposing Single 16-SR10 Low Mixed Decomposing Single
3.6 WILDLIFE Wildlife use was assessed by counting ungulate pellet groups in five, 4-metre radius plots along a 50 m transect from plot centre. This differs from previous years, where wildlife use was recorded based on general observations of bedding sites, browse evidence and pellet groups.
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 6 Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
Pellet groups for deer, elk, and/or moose were found at each plot (Table 6). Moose pellets were found to be the most abundant, followed by elk, and then deer. Moose and elk pellets were each found at 9 of the 10 plots, while deer were detected at 6 plots. No correlation between wildlife use and other data was explored, but this could be done in future work.
Table 6: Total pellet groups for ungulate species detected at Stuart River PP in 2016.
Plot Deer Elk Moose Total 16-SR01 - 3 5 8 16-SR02 - - 13 13 16-SR03 - 1 1 2 16-SR04 - 3 2 5 16-SR05 1 8 1 10 16-SR06 2 7 - 9 16-SR07 8 10 12 30 16-SR08 14 6 15 35 16-SR09 1 1 7 9 16-SR10 2 9 5 16 Total 28 48 61 137
A den site was located near Plot 1 at UTM Zone 10, 447015 E, 6007814 N (Figure 1). The species that made the den is not confirmed, but is potentially wolf, coyote or bear. There were several holes close together, but it could not be determined if they were connected. There was no evidence of prey item remains around the dens site or of recent use, although the excavation did not appear to be very old.
Figure 1: Den site located near Plot 1 in Stuart River PP.
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 7 Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
3.7 UNIDENTIFIED PLANTS Some species of plants could not be identified in the field. Plants generally began to wither in early September, making identification of some species more difficult. However, most species remained in a condition suitable for conducting the vegetation assessment.
No specimens of unidentified plants were collected. Species that could not be identified in the field were noted as additional species for the transect, but they all lacked structures required to secure a confident identification.
4 CONTINUING/FUTURE WORK Future work should include a compilation of the data to provide one large, organized dataset for easier viewing and analysis.
The primary scope of the 2016 work described in this document was to visit the plots and collect data after the most recent prescribed fire at Stuart River PP. Data for the 2006, 2009, and 2012 exists, but is several formats, both in spreadsheets and reports. Compilation of the data into a standard format would be beneficial for storage and organizational purposes, and may be mandatory for conducting additional analysis of the data (At minimum, it would make analysis much simpler and straightforward).
Several issues require attention going forward:
• The 2012 plot numbering does not match the UTM coordinates for previous years. When the data is compiled, an effort should be made to rectify this issue.
• 2012 site 12-7208 (corresponding to Plot 7 in other years) was assessed at the top of the hill in a level treed area. This area was not treated, and does not resemble the initial location of the Plot in 2006 or 2016. It should be removed from the data set.
Beginning in 2016, the data was collected using a different protocol, which presents additional challenges to analysis, since not all the data is directly comparable. Some multivariate statistical approaches have a broad tolerance for noisy inconsistent data. Exploration of the existing data in this manner and could provide excellent insight into some of the broad changes in the plant communities and correlations with environmental conditions and wildlife use.
4.1 DATA ENTRY TRIAL The intention at the start of the work was to enter data directly to the ERPro database. After contacting the developer of this software it was determined that the mobile version of the software was still in the testing phase.
In looking for an alternative, digital data entry was preferred, so Survey 123 was used. This app was available to Ecofor without charge as part of their ESRI ArcMap subscription. It allowed for customized form-based data entry, recorded GPS location for each survey point, and integrated photo collection as part of each form. Data from the app was uploaded to ArcGIS Online each evening (when the crew returned to wifi/cell service) via an automated process. Once the data was on ArcGIS Online, it could be
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 8 Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
exported to MS Excel tables, and from there to whatever other purpose require (MS Access for additional processing, MS Word for reporting etc).
The data in its current form cannot be easily entered into ERPro. It may be possible for it to be manipulated to match ERPro standards for easier import.
5 CLOSURE This report summarizes the findings of the field work by Mark Pokorski and Ruth Lloyd of Ecofor Consulting Ltd. regarding the assessment of vegetation and other characteristics of permanent survey plots in Stuart River PP. Findings reflect the conditions in the field at the time of the assessment.
We trust this report satisfies your requirements at this time and thank you for the opportunity to work with you on the project. If you have questions or concerns do not hesitate to contact our office.
Yours truly,
Ecofor Consulting Ltd.
Prepared By: Reviewed By:
Mark Pokorski, MSc. RPBio, PBiol, Crispin Guppy, MSc, RPBio, PBiol Senior Biologist, Project Manager Natural Resources Program Manager
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 9 Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
6 LITERATURE CITED
Albertson, O. 2009. Stuart River Prescribed Burn Monitoring Report. Wildlife Solutions. Vanderhoof, British Columbia, Canada.
British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range and British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2010. Field manual for describing terrestrial ecosystems. 2nd ed. Forest Science Program, Victoria, B.C. Land Management Handbook No. 25. www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh/Lmh25- 2.htm
Ecofor Consulting Ltd. 2016. Euchiniko Sidehills and Grizzly Valley 2015 Vegetation Monitoring Summary. Ecofor Consulting Ltd. Fort St. James, British Columbia, Canada.
Rooke, S., B. Pate, and R.S. McNay. 2015. A prescribed burn monitoring protocol for the Omineca Region, British Columbia. Wildlife Infometrics Report No. 494. Wildlife Infometrics Inc., Mackenzie, British Columbia, Canada.
Sharp, Barb. 2006. Stuart River Provincial Park Prescribed Burn Monitoring Report. B.C. Ministry of Environment - Environmental Stewardship - Parks and Protected Areas Section. Prince George, British Columbia, Canada.
Simonar, Ken, and Saphida Migabo. 2006. Stuart River Prescribed Fire Monitoring Protocol. Bio-Geo Dynamics., Prince George, B.C.
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 10 Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
Mapping
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 11 Template Version: 10
438000 439000 440000 441000 442000 443000 444000 445000 446000 447000
NECOSLIE
6010000 Ne 6010000 c osli e R i v e r
CHARLIE
6009000 16-SR10 6009000
16-SR09 16-SR08 16-SR02 16-SR07 16-SR01 6008000 6008000 16-SR03 16-SR06 16-SR04 16-SR05
STUART RIVER PARK - LOWER SITE 6007000 6007000
BLUE MOUNTAIN Stuart River 6006000 6006000
Br eadalb ane C r ee 6005000 k 6005000
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Vegetation Plots 2016 Stuart River Provincial Park Vegetation Monitoring Plots Road - Other 1:40,000 Provincial Park Boundary Study Waterbody Area Ü 0 0.5 1Km Wetland NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N Stream - Definite
Stream - Indefinite Ecofor Consulting Ltd. March-03-17 (MM) Contour (100m) Disclaimer: This product is for informational purposes only and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. The base data layers have been obtained from the British Columbia Geographic Warehouse (BCGW) and the National Topographic System (NTS). Contour (20m) SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
Data Tables
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 13 Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary Site Characteristics
Plot UTM Sample Plot BGC Successional Structural Elevation Slope Aspect Meso Surface Microtop Microtop Name Zone Easting Northing Date Crew General Location Representing Unit Status Stage (m) % (degrees) slope _shape Prefix _Feature Notes Site is located on uphill side of a small bench Site is located within metres of a short of steep south-facing slope above small lake bench on hillside where water appears to 16- 2016- MP Treated SBS 10 447019 6007803 just below midslope. Site is about 1.14 km YS 3a 756 60 190 MD CC mc mnd collect creating mini patch of sedge and SR01 09-08 RL shrubland dw3 north of the Stuart River within the SR Prove grass. Alder at site also indicate moisture park. from hillside does collect in area. 16- 2016- MP Burnt aspen parkland area with abundant SBS Burnt aspen area on benched area. 10 446403 6007892 Treated YS 3a 765 18 190 MD ST mc mnd SR02 08-30 RL regen dw3 Abundant regen 16- 2016- MP Below south-facing slope next to small lake SBS 10 445473 6007640 Treated YS 3 724 10 210 LW ST sl hmk SR03 09-01 RL within patch of remaining spruce forest dw3 16- 2016- MP Steep southwest-facing slope above lake SBS 10 444439 6007583 Treated YS 3a 752 53 170 MD CC mc hmk SR04 09-01 RL approx mid slope. Azimuth is 318 dw3 Lower section of open slope to the west of a Area burned well on lower slope with few 16- 2016- MP small lake. Aspen and shrub approximately SBS 10 443764 6007337 Treated YS 3a 735 15 180 LW CC mc hmk live aspen remaining. Further upslope SR05 09-02 RL 800 m from north shore of the Stuart River in dw3 many live aspen and some spruce. SR Provincial park. Irregular slope east-west across a larger Lower third of south-facing slope of aspen south-facing hillside. Large number of and brush. Approx 1.3 km from north side of ungulate beds and wildlife trailers 16- 2016- MP SBS 10 442932 6007535 Stuart River in SR Provincial Park. Bottom of Treated YS 3a 739 35 200 LW CC mc mnd encountered enroute to site from Site 16- SR06 09-02 RL dw3 slope appears to terminate in a ravine with SR05. Hillside aspen forested upslope of some water in a mixed forest site but mainly shrub and dead aspen @ site Upper slope near crest of hill on south-facing Generally south-facing slope with small slope above small lake. Shrubbed hillside undulations cross-slope forming shallow 16- 2016- MP Treated SBS 10 442203 6007822 adjacent to aspen stand at top of slope YS 3a 773 35 210 UP CV mc mnd draws and shallow ridges. Shrubbed SR07 09-08 RL shrubland dw3 leading into spruce forest. 1.4 km north of hillside with some remnant dead aspen Stuart River in Stuart R Provincial Park from burn. Top of south-facing slope, just as the slope Shrub and herb dominant with low-laying begins to drop from bench. Open shrubbed coarse woody debris an easy traversing. 16- 2016- MP area, approx 30 m south from forested SBS 10 440791 6008018 Treated/shrub YS 3a 767 21 190 UP CV mc mnd Wildlife trails and heavily used ungulate SR08 09-06 RL bench, approx 100 m upslope from wetland, dw3 beds and mineral lick passed on route mixed spruce forest on south side of wetland. into site Site approx 1km north of Stuart River Near base of a south-facing slope next to 16- 2016- MP Treated, SBS 10 439506 6007993 small wetland approx 375 m from Stuart YS 3b 727 35 200 LW ST mc mnd SR09 09-06 RL shrubland dw3 River inside the Stuart River Prov Park Gently sloping mature aspen and shrub area of south-facing hillside with mixed spruce Rolling terrain across slope with very 16- 2016- MP Treated/forest SBS 10 437713 6008680 forest at bottom of slope and mixed forest YS 3a 756 13 220 MD CV mc mnd shallow gullies, site is at lower edge of SR10 09-09 RL and shrub dw3 Above on crest. Site located at base of fallen aspen forest, more open hillside below aspen.
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 14 Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary Supplemental Data
Total Canopy Height to Plot trees in Transect General Site Comments Ungulate Plot Comments Sapling and Regen Comments Cover Crown plot Azimuth Small den in hillside at 10 m, possibly fox den. Large bear den next No live trees over sapling size at site, to the smaller den, west across slope, entrance ~45 cm wide. U1 is an alder sp. Alnus tenufolia mountain alder 16-SR01 0-5% 1 - 3 crown is shrub and some deciduous Shrub/herb cover and deadfall variable thru azimuth and difficult Saskatoon and red osier dogwood also present saplings to see thru in sections may underestimate ungulate use. 16-SR02 0-5% 2 - 19 No crown has developed since burn. Open plot with some remaining tall Open area at base of slope. Well separated trees with no Pellet groups difficult to find due to dense shrub and herb layer, 16-SR03 5-25% 7 - 83 spruce so live crown continuous to consistent canopy and live branches to base. Well developed likely an underestimate of use. forest floor essentially shrub and herb layers. Herb/shrub layer with sapling regen Wildlife trail crosses plot azimuth near 30 m and another fainter 16-SR04 0-5% 0 - 318 make up groundcover, no live crown at wildlife trail at 41.5 m this point No real crown cover, two sparse aspen Browsing apparent on shrubs and a wildlife trail through plots at 10 provide minimal crown, no crown layer. m, 30 m, 40 m Wildlife trail through site area. Noted both bear and elk scat 16-SR05 0-5% 2 - 144 Estimate 10 m to crowns of trees in plot Likely an underestimate as dense shrub and herb layer with leaf on walk in as well as elk tree rub. but they are the only two trees close to litter reduces visibility to ground. transact. Heavy ungulate use based on wildlife trails and pellet groups in Crowns of the few live aspen at site are more treed areas. Pellet groups difficult to locate on visit due partly Wildlife trails and large number of animal beds on hillside. 16-SR06 0-5% 3 - 159 approx 25 m up, however majority of to heavy herb/shrub layer but also made more difficult by rain Ungulates appear to be using aspen as shelter upslope of site site is open scrubland oops creating similar surface texture in pellets and litter No trees in site or along azimuth, low Wildlife trail crosses azimuth at 42 m, perpendicular to 16-SR07 0-5% 0 - 130 shrub is only cover. But adjacent to Azimuth was 130 azimuth and near 14 m. Significant browsing evident on forest. shrubs, unknown duck species on lake at visit. No live crown, area is shrub and herb Wildlife trail crosses azimuth at 23 m and runs nearly parallel for Extensive aspen regen, as well as many plants characteristic 16-SR08 0-5% 0 - 117 cover on open south-facing slope approx 80% of azimuth, evidence of browsing on shrubs of well-drained areas Open shrub next to wetland bog or fen Good habitat for browsing and wetland use, slope had wildlife trails 16-SR09 0-5% 2 15 111 and some spruce. spotted while making way to site Aspen stand with live crown on north Wildlife trails and beds throughout area. Browsing apparent 16-SR10 5-25% 6 20 323 side of site, open shrub downslope to Wildlife trail crosses transect at 30m. on shrubs. south
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 15 Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
Understory Species by Plot
English Name Scientific Name Veg Type 16-SR01 16-SR02 16-SR03 16-SR04 16-SR05 16-SR06 16-SR07 16-SR08 16-SR09 16-SR10 Total # plots Occurances American Vetch Vicia americana Forb 19 14 5 27 8 12 2 8 5 7 107 10 Blunt-fruited Sweet-cicely Osmorhiza depauperata Forb 1 1 1 Canada Goldenrod Solidago canadensis Forb 6 6 1 Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense Forb 1 1 1 Canada Violet Viola canadensis var. rugulosa Forb 1 4 4 2 10 2 4 2 3 1 33 10 Cow-parsnip Heracleum maximum Forb 3 7 10 2 Creamy Peavine Lathyrus ochroleucus Forb 6 5 5 6 8 1 7 1 39 8 False Solomon's-seal Maianthemum racemosum ssp. amplexicaule Forb 2 1 2 5 3 Fireweed Chamerion angustifolium Forb 1 2 6 2 4 2 2 19 7 Great Northern Aster Canadanthus modestus Forb 4 4 1 Hooker's Fairybells Prosartes hookeri var. oregana Forb 7 14 8 13 16 8 6 1 6 11 90 10 Lindley's Aster Symphyotrichum ciliolatum Forb 1 1 1 6 3 8 20 6 Northern Bedstraw Galium boreale Forb 2 2 8 2 4 9 5 4 2 38 9 Pink Wintergreen Pyrola asarifolia ssp. asarifolia Forb 3 1 4 2 Purple Peavine Lathyrus nevadensis var. pilosellus Forb 8 1 9 2 Purple Sweet-cicely Osmorhiza purpurea Forb 1 1 1 Queen's Cup Clintonia uniflora Forb 5 6 11 4 26 4 Scarlet Paintbrush Castilleja miniata var. miniata Forb 2 3 3 8 3 Showy Aster Eurybia conspicua Forb 12 4 19 16 8 7 7 12 5 14 104 10 Slender Wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus Forb 1 1 2 2 Spreading Dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium var. androsaemifolium Forb 11 11 1 Western Meadowrue Thalictrum occidentale Forb 5 5 3 3 4 1 1 22 7 Wild Sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis Forb 2 3 6 8 2 2 23 6 Yarrow Achillea millefolium var. borealis Forb 1 1 1 Blue Wildrye Elymus glaucus ssp. glaucus Grass 3 11 2 4 12 5 1 9 47 8 Fowl Bluegrass Poa palustris Grass 1 2 3 6 3 Fringed Brome Bromus ciliatus Grass 9 10 1 20 3 Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis ssp. pratensis Grass 3 3 1 Rough-leaved Ricegrass Oryzopsis asperifolia Grass 2 9 1 8 4 24 5 Bunchberry Cornus canadensis Low Shrub 5 5 1 Dwarf Red Raspberry Rubus pubescens Low Shrub 1 2 1 4 3 Twinflower Linnaea borealis ssp. borealis Low Shrub 1 1 1 Wild Strawberry Fragaria virginiana var. glauca Low Shrub 6 1 1 7 1 16 5
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 16 Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
Shrub Species by Plot
English Name Scientific Name 16-SR01 16-SR02 16-SR03 16-SR04 16-SR05 16-SR06 16-SR07 16-SR08 16-SR09 16-SR10 Total length # plots Beaked Hazelnut Corylus cornuta var. cornuta 0.3 0.3 1 Birch-leaved Spirea Spiraea lucida 1.35 1.5 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.35 0.7 5.2 7 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana var. demissa 2.75 3.45 0.2 0.25 0.15 0.6 7.4 6 Common Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus var. albus 3.3 0.3 0.55 3.8 1.15 3.1 1.8 0.07 3.25 17.32 9 Highbush-cranberry Viburnum edule 0.35 0.35 0.7 2 Hybrid White Spruce Picea engelmannii X glauca 0.8 0.8 1 Paper Birch Betula papyrifera var. papyrifera 0.1 0.1 1 Pin Cherry Prunus pensylvanica 1.55 1.55 1 Prairie Saskatoon Amelanchier alnifolia var. alnifolia 1.75 1.7 0.75 1.35 0.4 1.9 11.75 4.15 6.1 1.6 31.45 10 Prickly Rose Rosa acicularis ssp. sayi 3.65 2.25 1.75 2.9 6.25 5.05 1.71 0.2 1.65 2.6 28.01 10 Pyramid Spirea Spiraea x pyramidata 2.15 2.6 4.75 2 Red Raspberry Rubus idaeus ssp. strigosus 0.95 0.05 1.4 1.45 3.85 4 Red-osier Dogwood Cornus stolonifera 0.22 0.22 1 Tall Oregon-grape Mahonia aquifolium 1.55 0.35 1.2 0.35 0.45 0.35 0.9 1.87 3.05 3.55 13.62 10 Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus 0.9 0.05 0.95 2 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides 4.05 1.6 0.4 1.3 2.2 0.8 1.9 1.75 3.9 17.9 9
Tree DBH and Wildlife Classes by Plot
Plot BAF Crew DBH_limit Tree Sp Age DBH Wildlife Code 16-SR01 4 MP RL 12.5 At 21 Hardwood7 16-SR02 4 MP RL 12.5 At 20.9 Hardwood7 16-SR02 4 MP RL 12.5 At 17.2 Hardwood4 16-SR03 4 MP RL 12.5 Sxw 35 38.3 Conifer1 16-SR03 4 MP RL 12.5 Sxw 88.3 Conifer3 16-SR03 4 MP RL 12.5 Sxw 43 40.1 Conifer1 16-SR03 4 MP RL 12.5 Sxw 35.6 Conifer1 16-SR03 4 MP RL 12.5 Sxw 39.6 Conifer1 16-SR03 4 MP RL 12.5 Sxw 39.3 Conifer1 16-SR03 4 MP RL 12.5 W 40 Hardwood2 16-SR05 4 MP RL 12.5 At 29 Hardwood2 16-SR05 4 MP RL 12.5 At 30.4 Hardwood2 16-SR06 4 MP RL 12.5 At 35.5 Hardwood2 16-SR06 4 MP RL 12.5 At 21.7 Hardwood7 16-SR06 4 MP RL 12.5 At 18.8 Hardwood9 16-SR09 4 MP RL 12.5 Sxw 39 48 Conifer1 16-SR09 4 MP RL 12.5 Sxw 34 37.7 Conifer1 16-SR10 4 MP RL 12.5 At 49.7 Hardwood7 16-SR10 4 MP RL 12.5 At 44 Hardwood1 16-SR10 4 MP RL 12.5 At 50.8 Hardwood2 16-SR10 4 MP RL 12.5 At 43.4 Hardwood9 16-SR10 4 MP RL 12.5 At 41.8 Hardwood9 16-SR10 4 MP RL 12.5 At 48.2 Hardwood9
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 17 Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
Coarse Woody Debris with Additional Comments
CWD CWD CWD Plot CWD Decay Class CWD Comments Volume Length complexity Walking very difficult due to number of pieces of coarse woody debris but most of the debris are smaller diameter, <12 cm dbh, 16-SR01 High Mixed Decomposing Complex steepness also a factor in movement. 16-SR02 Moderate Mixed Decomposing Complex Fallen burnt trees with little bark but solid wood. 16-SR03 Moderate Mixed Decomposing Single Smaller diameter aspen all over plot on ground, some areas they are stacked up but low numbers of branches and highly burnt state 16-SR04 High Mixed Decomposing Complex means walking not completely impeded, expect most trees still standing to fall within next 5 years Walking in some directions difficult due to high numbers of downed and burnt aspen, however no massive pile ups and few beaches 16-SR05 Moderate Mixed Decomposing Single make moving around not too difficult except for dense shrubs which make it difficult to see ground terrain. Walking a transect not as hampered by large woody debris at this site as previous sites, but short steep drops in places did add to 16-SR06 Moderate Mixed Decayed Complex challenge of the area and dense shrub growth 16-SR07 None NA NA NA Very little coarse woody debris at site. Open and easy walking. Walking on south side of plot marker is unimpeded for most part, some heavier areas of deadfall north of plot marker towards 16-SR08 Low Short Decomposing Single forested plateau area 16-SR09 Moderate Mixed Decomposing Single Walking impeded more by slope and heavy shrub than by coarse woody debris 16-SR10 Low Mixed Decomposing Single Easy walking in mostly open terrain. Some fallen mature aspen to step over, some softer and more decayed prices in spots
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 18 Template Version: 10
SERNbc – Stuart River Provincial Park 2016 Vegetation Monitoring Summary
Photodocumentation
2016_SERNbc_SRPP_Summary.docx ecofor.ca Page 19 Template Version: 10
SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 8, 2016 Comments: 16-SR01 North
Date: Sept 8, 2016 Comments: 16-SR01 East
Date: Sept 8, 2016 Comments: 16-SR01 South SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 8, 2016 Comments: 16-SR01 West
Date: Sept 8, 2016 Comments: 16-SR01 Ground
Date: Sept 8, 2016 Comments: 16-SR01 Diagram SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Aug 30, 2016 Comments: 16-SR02 North
Date: Aug 30, 2016 Comments: 16-SR02 East
Date: Aug 30, 2016 Comments: 16-SR02 South SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Aug 30, 2016 Comments: 16-SR02 West
Date: Aug 30, 2016 Comments: 16-SR02 Ground This photo was missed during the field day.
Date: Aug 30, 2016 Comments: 16-SR02 Diagram This photo was missed during the field day. SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 1, 2016 Comments: 16-SR03 North
Date: Sept 1, 2016 Comments: 16-SR03 East
Date: Sept 1, 2016 Comments: 16-SR03 South SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 1, 2016 Comments: 16-SR03 West
Date: Sept 1, 2016 Comments: 16-SR03 Ground
Date: Sept 1, 2016 Comments: 16-SR03 Diagram SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 1, 2016 Comments: 16-SR04 North
Date: Sept 1, 2016 Comments: 16-SR04 East
Date: Sept 1, 2016 Comments: 16-SR04 South SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 1, 2016 Comments: 16-SR04 West
Date: Sept 1, 2016 Comments: 16-SR04 Ground
Date: Sept 1, 2016 Comments: 16-SR04 Diagram SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 2, 2016 Comments: 16-SR05 North
Date: Sept 2, 2016 Comments: 16-SR05 East
Date: Sept 2, 2016 Comments: 16-SR05 South SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 2, 2016 Comments: 16-SR05 West
Date: Sept 2, 2016 Comments: 16-SR05 Ground
Date: Sept 2, 2016 Comments: 16-SR05 Diagram SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 2, 2016 Comments: 16-SR06 North
Date: Sept 2, 2016 Comments: 16-SR06 East
Date: Sept 2, 2016 Comments: 16-SR06 South SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 2, 2016 Comments: 16-SR06 West
Date: Sept 2, 2016 Comments: 16-SR06 Ground
Date: Sept 2, 2016 Comments: 16-SR06 Diagram SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 8, 2016 Comments: 16-SR07 North
Date: Sept 8, 2016 Comments: 16-SR07 East
Date: Sept 8, 2016 Comments: 16-SR07 South SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 8, 2016 Comments: 16-SR07 West
Date: Sept 8, 2016 Comments: 16-SR07 Ground
Date: Sept 8, 2016 Comments: 16-SR07 Diagram SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 6, 2016 Comments: 16-SR08 North
Date: Sept 6, 2016 Comments: 16-SR08 East
Date: Sept 6, 2016 Comments: 16-SR08 South SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 6, 2016 Comments: 16-SR08 West
Date: Sept 6, 2016 Comments: 16-SR08 Ground
Date: Sept 6, 2016 Comments: 16-SR08 Diagram SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 6, 2016 Comments: 16-SR09 North
Date: Sept 6, 2016 Comments: 16-SR09 East
Date: Sept 6, 2016 Comments: 16-SR09 South SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 6, 2016 Comments: 16-SR09 West
Date: Sept 6, 2016 Comments: 16-SR09 Ground
Date: Sept 6, 2016 Comments: 16-SR09 Diagram SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 9, 2016 Comments: 16-SR10 North
Date: Sept 9, 2016 Comments: 16-SR10 East
Date: Sept 9, 2016 Comments: 16-SR10 South SERNbc Vegetation Monitoring Plots Stuart River Provincial Park 2016
Date: Sept 9, 2016 Comments: 16-SR10 West
Date: Sept 9, 2016 Comments: 16-SR10 Ground
Date: Sept 9, 2016 Comments: 16-SR10 Diagram